[MUD-Dev2] [DESIGN} Who to design for?

[Sean Howard]

"Caliban Darklock" <cdarklock at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would suggest the popularity of MFS is not because people want to
> learn how to fly a plane, but because people want to fly a plane
> without learning how.

See? Now we're arguing over degrees! Microsoft Flight Sim is still a
pretty darn complex game - certainly more so than 99% of the other games
out there that casual players avoid like the plague. Therefore, I think it
is extremely safe to suggest that complexity has little, if any, affect on
a casual gamer's interests.

And the reason why Falcon isn't as popular is because it has a niche
interest. For one thing, it's military based. A lot of the realism of the
game requires knowing indepth minutae of combat fighter crafts and
maneuvers. Hell, I love complex games, but that subject matter couldn't
interest me less if it had a blog about how emo it was feeling today.

> Specifically, they are more than capable of playing a very complex
> game, if the game does not RELY ON the complexity.
> ...
> But the determining factor is not how complex the game CAN be, it is
> how complex the game MUST be.

Yeah, but you could make statements like that about anything. The Sims is
a dollhouse simulator but its not RELY ON liking dollhouses. Lord of the
Rings Online is based on Tolkien's work but it does not RELY ON knowing
Tolkien's work. At some point, you've got to realize that you've stretched
this anti-complexity argument to the point where you no longer have any
ground left to stand on.

Fact: Casual gamers do not shy away from complex games. In fact, many
really popular casual games are more complex than the average commercial
videogame.

You can dance around that all you want, but you are always going to end up
back in the same place - that complexity isn't a deal breaker. So, if
complexity isn't it, then what else could it be?

>> I believe that when you design something, there is a destination that
>> you must strive for, in which all parts work in absolute harmony.
>
> But it's still artificial. There's no natural requirement that a
> knight must move the way it does, someone just made it up. There are
> many ways a knight could move, and while some of them would unbalance
> the game, there are many that would not. The harmony you describe is
> not a natural harmony. It is, at best, an imitation of natural
> harmony.

Hmm... Natual or not, harmony is harmony and it is the destination all
designers must aim for. Gosh, I'm starting to sound like Christopher
Alexander now. "The Quality That Can Not Be Named" and all that stuff.

There are different destinations a game can aim for. Yeah, there are
different ways a knight can move, but for a specific destination, there is
a superior decision on that matter - or at least, if they are equal, then
choosing either or will still achieve the desired perfection in thought
and deed.

-- 
Sean Howard